"Google and MPEG LA announced today that they have entered into agreements granting Google a license to techniques that may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders. The agreements also grant Google the right to sublicense those techniques to any user of VP8, whether the VP8 implementation is by Google or another entity. It further provides for sublicensing those VP8 techniques in one next-generation VPx video codec. As a result of the agreements, MPEG LA will discontinue its effort to form a VP8 patent pool." The word that stood out to me: the auxiliary verb 'may', which has a rather low epistemic modality. To me, this indicates that this is not so much a clear-cut case of VP8 infringing upon patents, but more a precautionary move on Google's part.

There is no statement of "no admission that VP8 infringes" in the announcement by Google and MPEGLA. Do you actually think I care about what you think? You and a few others are holding onto an absurd delusion that Google is not paying for this license; that, in fact, the MPEGLA needed to settle to avoid paying Google and/or having its patents invalidated... but if such was the case, why wouldn't they actually announce that the agreement is mutual, that licensing is bidirectional?